ASHISH C SINGHANIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(3)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 3475/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2831 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA J MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: BEHARILAL
• Keywords: Business income; Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 , ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- A,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SANJAY GARG,JUDICIAL MEMBER /.ITA NO.3475/MUM/2012, /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 SHRI ASHISH C. SINGHANIA 72-A, MITTAL TOWER, 7 TH FLOOR NARIMAN POINT,MUMBAI-400 021. PAN:AAFPS 5268 K VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)-1 MUMBAI. ( / ASSESSEE) ( / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BEHARILAL / REVENUE BY : MS. VINITA J. MENON / DATE OF HEARING :16 - 09-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 -10-2015 , 1961 1961 1961 1961 254 254 254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.16.04.2012 OF CIT(A)-23,MU MBAI,THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 31.07.08,DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 67.59 LACS.THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 27.12.2010 U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE AT 69 .98 LACS. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND RELATES TO TREATMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN(STCG)AS BUSINESS INCOME, AMOUNTING TO RS.63,53,055/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS,THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED STCG OF RS.63,53,055/- ARISIN G FROM THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES, THAT HE HAD CHURNED PORTFOLIOS OF SHARES WITHIN A S HORT SPAN OF TIME,THAT THERE WAS RAPID FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF SCRIPS OF FEW COMPANIES,THAT HE PURCHASED SHARES OF VALUE OF RS.8,70,27,899/- AND SOLD SHARES FOR A SUM OF RS.9,45,35,397/-.A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE STCG OF RS.63,53, 055/-SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME.IN RE SPONSE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08 WERE COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE THAT THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF SHARE TRANSACTION WAS TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS.THE ASSESSEE RELIED UP ON DECISION OF GOPAL PUROHIT. THE AO HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA AND DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THAT THE HON'BLE COURT HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN THE ABOVE CASE ON FACTS AND NOT ON LAW,THAT THE ASSESSEE'S RE LIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF GOPAL PUROHIT WAS MISPLACED.THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INV OLVED A TURNOVER OF RS.9,45,53,397/-,THAT SHARE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED IN TO FOR EARNING T HE PROFITS FROM TRADING IN SHARES ,THAT THE HOLDING OF THE SCRIPS IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT WAS NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF CHARACTERISTIC OF INVESTMENT,THAT SURROUNDING FACTORS HAD TO BE APPRE CIATED,THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.71,490/- HAD BEEN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON A N INVESTMENT OF APPROXIMATELY RS.1,56, 09,258/-,THAT IF ASSESSEE'S INTENTION WERE TO HOLD SUCH SHARES AS INVESTMENTS THEN HE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HELD THE SHARES FOR A LONGER PERIOD TO E NTAIL EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME THEREFROM,THAT THE DIVIDEND RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE ACTIVITY OF TRADING IN SHARES AND NOT A CONSCIOUS EFFORT MADE B Y HIM BY MAKING INVESTMENTS,THAT THE PROFITS RELATING TO THE BUSINESS VENTURE OF SALE AN D PURCHASE OF SHARES WERE ASSESSABLE AS PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS,THAT HE HAD ENTERED I NTO NUMEROUS TRANSACTIONS IN THE YEAR ASHISH C. SINGHANIA-3475/12.AY.08-09 2 INVOLVING SALE OF SHARES OF A TURNOVER OF RS. 9,45, 53, 397/-,THAT THE FREQUENCY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THERE WAS NO IN TENTION FOR KEEPING IT AS AN INVESTMENT,THAT TREATMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD ALWAYS BE M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION OF GIVING IT THE COLOUR OF WHAT HE DESIRED,THAT WHERE THERE WAS A REPETITION AND CONTINUITY COUPLED WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTION BEARI NG REASONABLE PROPORTION TO THE STRENGTH OF HOLDING THEN AN INFERENCE COULD READILY BE DRAWN THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS IN NATURE OF BUSINESS,THAT THE ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY INVOLVING REGULAR TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALES,THAT THE FREQUEN CY, CONTINUITY AND MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RELATION TO HIS INVESTMENT VALUE WA S CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT HIS ACTIVITY WAS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF EQUITY SHARES FOR EARNING PROFIT AND NOT FOR HOLDING AS INVESTMENTS,THAT HE HAD ENTERED INTO 220 TRANSACTI ONS OF SALE ON WHICH HE EARNED NET SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.63,53,055/-,THAT SHARES HAD BEEN HELD FOR VERY SHORT DURATION,THAT HE HAD APPLIED FOR SHARES IN THE PRIMARY MARKET AND HA D EARNED GOOD INCOME,THAT HE APPLIED FOR SHARES OFFERED IN PUBLIC ISSUES OF M/S MUNDRA PORT AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. AND M/S NITIN FIRE PROTECTION INDUSTRIES LTD. IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE PAID SUM OF RS.49.99 CRORES AND RS.40CRORES RESPECTIVELY AS APPLICATION MONEY,THAT HE WAS ALLOTTED 7430 AND 21358 SHARES IN THESE TWO COMPANIES WHICH WERE SOLD BY HIM IMMEDIAT ELY MAKING GAIN OF RS.42,49,268/- ,THAT HE HAD ALSO TAKEN LOANS TOTALING TO RS.2,51,4 5,708/- ON WHICH HE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS.9,52,959/-,THAT ALL THESE FACTS CONCLUSIVELY PRO VED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED LIKE A PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WHO LOOK MARKET RISKS TO EARN PROFITS. ACCORDINGLY,[ OF RS.63,53,055/- WAS TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE A O. 3 .IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY(FAA,IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PURCHASING THE SHARES WITH THE IN TENTION OF INVESTMENT,THAT HE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PURCH ASE OF SHARES HAD ALWAYS BEEN SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE ACCOUNTS,THAT THE EARLIER YEAR'S BALANCE SHEETS SHOWED THAT THE SHARES PURCHASED WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INVESTMENTS AND INCOME ARISING ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES HAD ALWAYS BEEN TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EARLIER THREE YEARS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT,AFTER VE RIFICATION OF HIS CLAIM FOR SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES HAD BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE AO,THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I N COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE ACCEPTED,THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DID NOT APPLY YET RULE OF CONSISTENCY DID APPLY,THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE SHARES HAD BEEN TR EATED AND DISCLOSED AS INVESTMENT AND NOT AS STOCK-IN-TRADE,THAT THE SIZE OF THE PORTFOLIO OR THE MAGNITUDE OF THE INVESTMENT WAS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INVESTOR OR A DEALER IN SHARES,THAT AN INVESTOR HAD TO DIVEST THE SHARES AT THE MOST OPPOR TUNE TIME BECAUSE HE HAD TO WEIGH THE RISK AND THE COST OF CARRYING THE INVESTMENT WITH THE RE TURNS THEREON,THAT MERELY BECAUSE SO MANY SHARES HAPPENED TO BE SOLD IN ONE YEAR DID NOT MEAN THAT THE GAIN ARISING THEREFROM WAS IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS INCOME,THAT MERE VOLUME OF TRANS ACTIONS WOULD NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS UNLESS THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES S UPPORTED THE SAME,THAT PERIOD OF HOLDING WAS SUFFICIENTLY LONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE CAPITAL GAIN,THAT IF THE GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES HELD BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PERIOD LESS THAN A YEAR WERE TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME THEN THE CATEGORY OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N AND THE ENTIRE SCHEME FOR TAXATION THEREOF WOULD BECOME OTIOSE AND MEANINGLESS,THAT HE BORROWED THE MONEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING A PPLICATION IN PUBLIC ISSUE OF THE COMPANIES,THAT HE ALLOWED OWN FUNDS AS WELL AS BORR OWED MONEY AND PAID INTEREST OF RS.52, 97,430/-,THAT APART FROM THE ABOVE THERE WAS NO OTH ER BORROWING FOR ACQUIRE OF ANY OTHER SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT HE ALSO RECEIVED INTER EST OF RS.2,26,715/- FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM ASHISH C. SINGHANIA-3475/12.AY.08-09 3 AND OTHER AND THEREFORE THE NET INTEREST OF RS.7,26 ,245/- HAD BEEN DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT,THAT MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN MONEY WAS BORRO WED FOR INVESTMENTS THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS ASSET AND CONSEQUENTLY CAPIT AL GAIN COULDNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE FAA CONSIDERED AO'S ORDER, SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIALS ON RECORD AND REFERRED TO THE CASES OF ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. P. LTD.(82 ITR 586) AND H HOLCK LARSEN(160 ITR 67)AND THE CIRCULAR NO.A/200 7 DATED 15/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE CBDT.HE HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IS TO BE ADJUDGED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH YEAR,THAT IN THE PRESENT DAY SCENARIO OF TRANS ACTIONS IN BSE/NSE OVER COMPUTER AND DIRECT CREDIT/DEBIT IN DEMAT ACCOUNTS THE FACT OF D ELIVERY COULD NOT BE THE MAJOR BASIS FOR CLAIMING THAT TAKING OF DELIVERY NECESSARILY IMPLIE D THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS ONE OF INVESTMENT,THAT THOUGH THE CONVERSE FACT OF NON-DEL IVERY WOULD HAVE STRONG IMPLICATIONS OF TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION, THAT DELIVERY WAS NOT ONLY CRITERION IN DECIDING THE ISSUE,THAT TREATING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS INVESTMENT WOULD NOT ITSELF BE PROOF THAT THE SAME WERE OF INVESTMENT, T HAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THE MAIN CRITERIA TO DECIDE THE NATURE OF THE SHARE TRA NSACTION. THE FAA REFERRED TO THE CASE OF HARSHA & MEHTA (ITA NO.1859/MUM/2009 DATED 16.7.201 0), IMMORTAL FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD.(8 TAXMAN. COM.32)AND NAGESH (ITA/ 5410/MUM/2 008 AY.2005-06 DATED 24.09. 2009)AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) ARGUED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ARE SAME AS THE FACTS OF THE EARLIER Y EAR. WE REFER TO THE ORDERS FOR THE A.Y.S 2005-06-2007-08 (PAGE NO. 20-28 OF THE PAPER BOOK), THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURN BACK THE BORROWED MONEY THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS, TH AT THE PROFIT EARNED BY SALE OF SHARES HELD FOR SHORT DURATION WAS LESS THAN 10%. HE REFERRED T O THE CASES OF SHRI. HITESH SATISHCHANDRA JOSHI ITA 6497/MUM/2009 A.Y. 2003-04 & 2006-07 DATE D 15.06.2011, SHRI. MAHENDRA C.SHAH ITA 6289/MUM/2008, SHRI. NAGINDAS P. SHAH (H UF) ITA 961/MUM/2010 AND GOPAL PUROHIT P36 ITR 287. .CONTENDED THAT .THE DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ARGUED THAT 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE TO TREAT INCOME ARISING OUT OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS A S BUSINESS INCOME OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES,IS NOT EASY TO DECIDE.THE HONBLE COURTS HA VE LAID DOWN CERTAIN PARAMETERS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE.IT IS TRUE THAT EACH SINGLE CRITERION IS NOT TO BE SEEN IN ISOLATION, BUT THE ENTIRE HOLISTI C PICTURE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS TO BE LO OKED INTO TO DECIDE AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS REPRESENT TRADE OR INVESTMENT.IN OUR O PINION,THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDING FACTOR TO HOLD SHARE TRANSACTION BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT AND INTENTION OF A PERSON CANNOT BE GATHERED BY CONSIDERING ONLY ONE FACTOR-I T HAS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.WE FIND THAT THE AO AND THE FAA HAVE POINTED OUT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARE S,THAT THEY HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEALT IN 23 SCRIPS INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 67 PURCH ASE TRANSACTIONS AND EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF SALE TRANSACTIONS,THAT THE HOLDING PERIOD WAS SMALL IN SEVERAL INSTANCES,THAT THE REPETITIVE BUYING AFTER SALES HAD BEEN SEEN IN 1/5TH OF THE SC RIPS DEALT IN.THEY HAVE GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RE-ENTERED TH E MARKET FOR PURCHASING SCRIPS AFTER HAVING SOLD HIS EARLIER HOLDINGS,WITH A FEW INTRADAY SALES AS WELL IN THE CASES OF ATLANTA (PURCHASE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF SALE), EID PARRY INDIA LTD. (WITHI N 16 DAYS OF SALE), ICLCI BANK (WITHIN 6 DAYS OF SALE), NITINFIRE (INTRA DAY AND REPEATED BU YING), TECH MAHENDRA LTD.(WITHIN 4 DAYS OF SALE). WE AGREE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE FAA THAT ENTE RING THE MARKET AGAIN AFTER DISPOSING OF ASHISH C. SINGHANIA-3475/12.AY.08-09 4 ONE'S HOLDING IS A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE INTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE TO TRADE IN THE SHARES AND NOT HOLD THEM AS INVESTMENT.IN OUR OPINION,THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT MERELY OFFLOADED HIS SHARES, BUT HAD TRIED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VOLATILITY O F THE MARKET TO MAXIMISE HIS PROFITS BY REPEATED BUYING AND SELLING OF THE VOLATILE SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DENIED THE FACT THAT IT HAD USED BORROWED FUNDS.IN OUR OPINION,USE OF BORRO WED FUNDS(RS.87 CRORES)IS A STRONG INDICATOR THAT THE ACTIVITY WAS A BUSINESS ACTIVITY NOT AN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE BORROWINGS HAVE ONLY BEEN FOR TRAN SACTIONS RELATING TO IPOS I.E. FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED FOR MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE IPO. APPLI CATION IN IPOS CANNOT PER SE BE SAID TO BE FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES ONLY.THE INTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE IS BROUGHT OUT BY THE FACT THAT OUT OF THE SCRIPS OBTAINED THROUGH IPO THE ASSESSEE SOL D THE SCRIPS ALMOST AS SOON AS THEY WERE ALLOTTED,WITHIN A FEW DAYS OF ALLOTMENT/RECEIPT.THE BEHAVIOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEALING WITH THE IPO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HAD NEVER ANY INTENTI ON OF HOLDING ON TO THE ALLOTTED SCRIPS FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME,THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF M AKING INVESTMENT AT THE TIME OF SUBSCRIPTION TO THE IPO. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE AO AND THE FAA THAT THE PRIN CIPLE OF RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIO NS IS TO BE ADJUDGED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH YEAR.FACTS OF THE E ARLIER YEARS WERE NOT PLACED ON RECORD EXCEPT STATING THAT IN EARLIER YEARS THE INCOME ON SALE OF SHARES WAS NOT ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME.BUT,IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE .WHETHER IN THE EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAD HELD SHARES FOR VERY SHORT DURATION OR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED IN TO REPETITIVE TRANSACTIONS IS NOT KNOWN.IT IS ALSO NOT PROVED THA T HE HAD BORROWED HEAVILY TO INVEST IN IPOS THAT WERE SOLD WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME.UNTIL AN D UNLESS ALL THESE FACTS ARE NOT PROVED POSITIVELY,THE EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE OF ANY HELP.WE ARE DECIDING THE ISSUE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS F OR THAT YEAR ONLY.AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS CUMULATIVELY WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING THE YEAR CANNOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED UP ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE FIND THAT IN THOSE CASES THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THOSE CASES FOR THOSE PARTICULAR YEARS.WE ALSO KNOW THAT IN CERTAIN CASES,AS REFERRED BY THE FAA,SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE.BUT,WE WILL NOT TAKE SUPPORT OF THOSE CASES ALSO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE BEF ORE US.WE ARE DECIDING THE ISSUE CONSIDERING THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOR T HAT WE HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSACTIONS,FREQUENCY OF SHARE TR ANSACTIONS,HOLDING PERIOD,INTRA-DAY SALES IN A FEW INSTANCES,THE REPETITIVE NATURE OF TRANSAC TIONS,UTILISATION OF BORROWED FUNDS,SALES OF IPO SCRIPS IMMEDIATELY AFTER ALLOTMENT.IN SHORT,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIR MITY.THEREFORE,CONFIRMING THE SAME,WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSES SEE. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND S DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH ,OCTOBER,2015. 28 ,2015 SD/- SD/- ( / SANJAY GARG) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI, /DATE:28.10.2015 . . . JV.SR.PS. ASHISH C. SINGHANIA-3475/12.AY.08-09 5 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.